Telangana High Court
Sham Kumar vs Om Prakash on 26 September, 2025
Author: P.Sam Koshy
Bench: P.Sam Koshy
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2269 of 2025
ORDER:
Heard Mr. M.V.Pratap Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner /
defendant No.1; Mr. Sharad Sanghi, learned counsel for respondent No.1
/ plaintiff, Mr. M.Pramod, learned counsel for respondent No.2, and
Mr. Mounik Reddy, learned counsel, representing Ms. Manjari S. Ganu,
learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4.
2. The instant Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India has been filed by defendant No.1 assailing the order
dated 28.04.2025, in I.A.No.1379 of 2024 in O.S.No.746 of 2014, passed
by the II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad.
3. The petitioner herein is the defendant No.1 and respondent No.1
herein is the plaintiff before the Trial Court. For convenience, they will
hereinafter be referred to as per rank before the Trial Court.
4. Vide the impugned order, the Court below has allowed the aforesaid
I.A. filed by defendant No.1 under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151
of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'CPC') for amendment of the
plaint by incorporating para 7(a) and 7(b) after para 7 of the plaint, serial
Nos.16 and 17 at para 17 of the plaint for the purpose of valuation of
schedule 'P' and 'Q' properties, and to add schedule 'P' property, schedule
'Q' property after schedule 'O' property.
5. The facts of the case, are that, the plaintiff had filed a suit for
partition. The suit schedule property is that which is reflected as schedule
'A' property till schedule 'O' property in the plaint. The suit was one which
was filed as early as in the year 2014. Pending the matter before the
Court below, the plaintiff filed the aforesaid I.A. seeking amendment of
the plaint by adding 7(a) and 7(b) immediately after para 7 in the plaint.
Vide the said amendment, the plaintiff intended to add two more
properties in the list of suit schedule properties and which should be
subjected to partition.
6. According to the plaintiff, he came to know about the said two more
properties much after filing of the suit. Therefore, he intended to add
schedule 'P' and 'Q' properties after schedule 'O' property and all of which
be treated as the suit schedule properties. According to the plaintiff, these
two properties also were either in the name of joint family or were the
properties purchased from the joint family funds.
7. It is this allowing of the amendment which has led to the filing of
the instant Civil Revision Petition.
8. According to the defendant No1, the plaintiff has not been able to
give a satisfactory or a plausible explanation for the unreasonable delay
on his part in seeking to amend and addition of two more properties to be
part of the suit schedule properties. According to the defendant No.1, the
plaintiff has also failed to explain and provide sufficient pleadings so as to
establish the newly added properties to be one which was purchased from
the joint family funds.
9. It was also the contention of the defendant No.1 that the plaintiff all
along was aware of the existence of these two properties and yet chose it
not be made as a part of the suit schedule properties at the first instance
and now at this belated stage has sought for the amendment of the suit
by adding these two properties. This amendment sought for being without
any explanation, ought to have been rejected by the Trial Court.
10. The defendant No.1, in support of his contentions, relied upon a
judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Shiv Gopal Sah alias
Shiv Gopal Sahu vs. Sita Ram Saraugi and Others 1 wherein the
Supreme Court has refused to permit the plaintiff to amend the plaint on
the ground of unexplained inordinate delay.
11. Per contra, the plaintiff opposing the Civil Revision Petition
contended that it is a suit for partition and by way of an amendment all
(2007) 14 Supreme Court Cases 120
that he seeks is to add two more properties to the list of suit schedule
properties already enclosed in the plaint. It was also contended that since
it was a suit for partition, addition of two more properties in the list of suit
schedule properties already enclosed would not in any manner adversely
affect the interest of defendant No.1 and whatever the objections that the
defendant No.1 has, he can raise the same by way of consequential
amendments in his written statement. Further, these very objections can
also be considered by the Trial Court in the course of framing of issues
and also in the course of trial.
12. It was also the contention of the plaintiff that defendant No.1 had
after filing of the written statement, filed an petition under Order VII Rule
11 of CPC i.e. I.A.No.1490 of 2016 which stood dismissed by the Trial
Court for want of prosecution on 15.11.2021 and now the defendant No.1
again with ulterior motive of protracting the proceedings by raising
frivolous and baseless objections has filed the present Civil Revision
Petition which deserves to be rejected.
13. Having heard the contentions put forth on either side and on
perusal of records, it would be relevant at this juncture to take note of a
recent decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Dinesh Goyal alias
Pappu vs. Suman Agarwal (Bindal) and Others 2 , wherein in
paragraph No.17, it has been held as under:
"17. Any and all delays in judicial processes should be avoided
and minimised to the largest extent possible, and should
generally be, and are rightly frowned upon. However, not in all
cases can delay determine the fate of a Suit. The defendant
submits that the time gap between submitting the written
statement to the Suit and the presentation of the application
seeking leave to amend is unexplained. If this argument of the
defendant is accepted, the question of Will shall remain undecided
or at best will be decided with great delay. The trial which has
admittedly already commenced, would be stalled by way of a
challenge to the framing of issues which, in turn, would not be in
consonance with the object of Order VI Rule 17 of CPC which is
aimed at preventing multiplicity or multiple avenues of litigation,
subsumed under the umbrella of one dispute."
14. Similarly, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh also in the case of Pitta
Samadana Swarooparani and Others vs. pitta Kumari and Others3
in somewhat similar circumstances relying upon the aforesaid judgment of
the Supreme Court in paragraph Nos.27 to 29 has held as under:
"27. The plaintiff in a partition suit many times may not be aware
of all the properties sought to be partitioned of the common
ancestral properties and if during the pendency of the case he
acquired knowledge about some more properties, which need to
be partitioned or included in the partition suit, the amendment to
add those properties cannot be refused on technical plea as raised
2024 SCC OnLine SC 2615
C.R.P. No.67 of 2025, decided on 05.03.2025
in the present case. It has not been argued that in spite of
knowledge of the properties now sought to be added or the
correct extents of the property items already included, either
wrong description was given or the properties items 6 to 8 were
deliberately omitted from addition in the plaint schedule property.
28. Applying the principle as in Dinesh Goya! alias Pappu
{su^vd), in the present case also, this Court is of the considered
view that considering the nature of the suit being for partition,
ordinarily, all the properties should be included in the suit
schedule to avoid multiplicity of legal proceedings, as also
following the principle of law that partition suit must generally
include all the properties of the common ancestor, they should
weigh over the second part that the trial has commenced. The
procedural aspect, cannot override the substantial part. In any
case, in the present case, the finding of due diligence has been
recorded in favour of the plaintiff so as to allow the amendment
application.
29. Considering that in the facts of the case the mistake could be
bona fide^s also that a suit for partition should ordinarily
embrace all properties, and delay is not a ground to deny the
amendment and that by inclusion of the properties sought to be
added, no prejudice is going to be caused, as it shall be for the
parties to the suit to prove during trial if that property belonged
to Pitta Venkata Ratnam or not in which both the parties will have
the opportunity, this Court does not find it a fit case for
interference with the impugned Order.
15. Another aspect which needs to appreciated is that the Trial Court
has taken note of the fact that in the event if the amendment is not
allowed, the same would lead to multiplicity of litigation and the plaintiff
have to file another suit for partition in respect of those two properties
against the very same defendant. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion
that nothing adverse has occurred against the defendant No.1. Further,
since it is an amendment petition filed before the evidence has
commenced, the amendment petition has to be considered in a more
liberal way rather than rejecting it only on the ground of delay.
16. Moreover, the Trial Court itself has held that whether the suit
schedule properties which are sought to be added as part of the suit
schedule properties already enclosed in the plaint is an ancestral property
or a property acquired from the joint family funds where the defendant
No.1 is the exclusive owner of the said property or he having purchased it
from his own independent source of income unassociated with the joint
family fund.
17. Moreover, it is settled position of law that when it is a suit for
partition, it must be ensured that the entire properties belonging to the
family or property acquired from the joint family funds needs to be
incorporated, or else it can have future complications.
18. With the aforesaid reasons assigned, if the Trial Court has rejected
the contentions of the defendant No.1 and have allowed the amendment
petition filed by the plaintiff, the same cannot be found fault with nor can
it be said to be in any manner contrary to law or there being any
perversity in the findings arrived at. In view of the same, this Court does
not find any strong case made out by the defendant No.1 calling for an
interference to the impugned order passed by the Trial Court.
19. The instant Civil Revision Petition thus fails, and is accordingly,
rejected. No costs.
20. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall stand
closed.
_____________
P.SAM KOSHY, J
Date: 26.09.2025
GSD
